In case you missed it, Boehner created a bit of a problem for himself earlier today when he seemed to suggest that he supported taxpayer funding for the cleanup. Dems have pounded him for the remarks all day today.

It all started when TPM asked Boehner at his press conference today whether he agrees with the Chamber of Commerce, which has said BP and the Federal government should pitch in to clean up the spill.

Boehner replied: "I think the people responsible in the oil spill -- BP and the federal government -- should take full responsibility for what's happening there."

Boehner's office subsequently clarified, saying he'd misheard the question. His aides pointed to this previous Boehner quote: "Not a dime of taxpayer money should be used to clean up their mess." And Boehner has also said we must "hold BP accountable for the clean up costs."

Those quotes are pretty clear. But the problem is that the Chamber's position is that while BP is on the hook for the cleanup, its liability for damages should be limited, meaning inevitably that taxpayers should bear some of that liability.

GOP aides are infuriated by the flap. "This is the way the scam works: Liberal bloggers gin up a fake controversy," one groused. "The DNC emails around their blog post. Then MSNBC picks up the 'controversy' and the liberal bloggers and liberal commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own silly little liberal noise machine."

Perhaps, but the distinction between cleanup and damages is clearly important to the Chamber and to BP. Boehner's office, however, insists that his position on this has been clear throughout.

Either way, asked for more clarification, Boehner spokesman Steel says that when Boehner said no taxpayer money should be spent on the cleanup, that does also include damages.

"No taxpayer money for cleanup or damages -- period," Steel emailed. "BP pays. If the current law doesn't guarantee that, we are happy to work in a bipartisan way on reasonable new legislation."

The blocking of raising the liability cap that is the crucial element of this story. And it SHOULD be getting more press. Because after the cap is reached who the he'll does Boehner think will end up paying? The taxpayers that's who!

As BG said, too late Mr. Orangman. I can hear the ads now. "Republicans think the tax payer should pay for BP's mistake. Republicans: always on the side of big oil, even in the face of the most catastropic environment event, ever."

"This is the way the scam works: Conservative bloggers gin up a fake controversy," one groused. "The RNC emails around their blog post. Then FOX picks up the 'controversy' and the rightwing bloggers and conservative commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own big old corporate-funded noise machine."

"This is the way the scam works: Liberal bloggers gin up a fake controversy," one groused. "The DNC emails around their blog post. Then MSNBC picks up the 'controversy' and the liberal bloggers and liberal commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own silly little liberal noise machine."

Wow...that guy's got some big huevos.

The rightwing has turned faux outrage into an artform. Didn't we just get through an entire week of Paul McCartney bashing? That only went away because Obama said "a**" on tv and I think that's now being replaced by Obama saying that he hadn't spoken to the BP CEO.

They wouldn't know what to do with their hands if they weren't clutching at their pearls.

"GOP aides are infuriated by the flap. "This is the way the scam works: Liberal bloggers gin up a fake controversy," one groused. "The DNC emails around their blog post. Then MSNBC picks up the 'controversy' and the liberal bloggers and liberal commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own silly little liberal noise machine." "

This is not a description of a liberal noise machine, but the conservative noise machine, aka The Wurlitzer.

The difference is that there was nothing FAKE about this controversy: Beutler's question was clear, and Boehner booted it. If he didn't hear it well, he should have said, 'Im sorry, could you repeat that?' But he answered immediately, with a clear intent to support the CoC's position. It's Boehner who is the numbnut in this contretemps.

All the states that are being devestated by the BP(Big Polluter) Gulf Water Chernobyl, are Red States,

So if the Republicans want to tell the residents of those states; You pay for the damages, and not BP, that is fine with me.

Republicans; put up or shut up. You always claim that States should be allowed to handle things, without the Federal Government stepping in.

Well, now is the time for you to get your wish. All the states affected by the spill have Republican Governors. Tell them to take care of the big spill on their own, and to make their own states pay the costs of clean up and recovery.

You know: "Get Government Of The Backs Of The States And Big Business."

Congressman John Boehner has made a good start, but he needs all your support on this issue.

"This is the way the scam works: Liberal bloggers gin up a fake controversy...The DNC emails around their blog post. Then MSNBC picks up the 'controversy' and the liberal bloggers and liberal commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own silly little liberal noise machine."

Ain't that the truth. (Someone above even wants to use this in an advertisement to misrepresent Boner's opinion!)

But Greg, good for you. You seem to recognize that this is the game and I am glad to see that you aren't playing it.

sgwhite's point is key. Do we have any clarification from Boehner's office on whether BP pays all damages in excess of the cap? Obviously if Boehner's position is that the cap is adequate and if liability costs exceed that limit then the taxpayers will be paying. Any chance of you getting this exact point clarified (if it hasn't been)?

"GOP aides are infuriated by the flap. "This is the way the scam works: Liberal bloggers gin up a fake controversy," one groused. "The DNC emails around their blog post. Then MSNBC picks up the 'controversy' and the liberal bloggers and liberal commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own silly little liberal noise machine.""

This is GOP SOP, just like it was for Goebbels: Ignore reality and accuse your adversary of what you are doing. Gotta give Rove credit: he learned propaganda from the best.

""This is the way the scam works: Liberal bloggers gin up a fake controversy," one groused. "The DNC emails around their blog post. Then MSNBC picks up the 'controversy' and the liberal bloggers and liberal commentators go on TV and talk about the latest figment of their own silly little liberal noise machine."

He's been watching so much Fox he thinks all networks do the same. Jon Stewart was very accurate how this works on the right...

Boehner is a clear target here for clarification and his office must be pressed further to get an explicit position on damages exceeding the cap...because taxpayers WILL pay if BP's liability costs are capped.

But it might be as productive to go doggedly after Donahue at the Chamber of Commerce as well. If enough reporters cover Donahue's present position then it will become increasingly apparent to citizens what the C of C proposes and who is going to suffer.

Definitely a lefty blog-generated nontroversy. That's EXACTLY the way the "scam" works, and all the libs here know it perfectly well, because this blog and they are a big part of it.

Donahue's original answer to the question was confusing but clearly about ex post facto lifting of the damage cap.

The question to Boehner was confused and somewhat misleading as well.

"But the problem is that the Chamber's position is that while BP is on the hook for the cleanup, its liability for damages should be limited, meaning inevitably that taxpayers should bear some of that liability."

Not true. If BP were not liable for all damages, it would NOT mean that taxpayers would bear the rest.

"Show me where Greg says "taxpayers would bear the rest"....he said "some of that liability" which is precisely what Mr. Donahue said in his statement"

First, you're wrong because that is precisely what Greg is saying here -- the government would be liable for "some" of the damages if BP's liability is capped, i.e., the portion beyond the cap.

Second, your objection is irrelevant to the point, which was that the cap on BP's liability would not, as Greg claims, "inevitably" mean that taxpayers would bear ANY of the rest. (Of course, if you think about it, if the government were not liable for the whole remainder, it wouldn't be liable for a portion, either, so your whole objection is illogical.)

Third, you mischaracterize Donahue, who did NOT say "precisely" what Greg says. As quoted at TPM:

""It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game.... Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that.""

The sentence you quote refers to the clean up, not damages, but, more importantly, while he refers to getting cleanup money from the government, he does not suggest, as Greg does, that the government is inevitably responsible for any damages not covered by BP. That is Greg's invention.